Culture doesn’t just shape behavior; it shapes the emotional states people value. Those values operate largely below the surface and can drive some of the most consequential decisions organizations make—who gets hired, who gets promoted, who looks like a leader, and increasingly, how we design AI.

For 30 years, psychologist Jeanne Tsai, the Dunlevie Family Professor at Stanford University and director of the Stanford Culture and Emotion Lab, has been building the science of how culture shapes emotion and its implications for decision-making, health, and how people are perceived. She joins organizational culture experts Jenny Chatman and Sameer Srivastava to discuss why it’s important for leaders to understand and examine this unwritten standard for how employees feel at work.

3 Main Takeaways from Jenny & Sameer’s Interview with Jeanne:

  1. Name and examine your organization’s emotional ideal—and as a leader, think about how that might be at odds with your employee’s own personal emotional ideal.
  2. Consider the possibility that your evaluation of a job candidate or employee might be a reflection of your emotional ideal rather than just a reflection of their merit or performance.
  3. Understand that emotional misreads are often cultural misreads, and leaders should not view those differences as character judgments.

Show Links:

*The Culture Kit with Jenny & Sameer is a production of Haas School of Business and is produced by University FM.*

Transcript

[00:00:00] Sameer Srivastava: Hi, Jenny. So, I have a question for you. Have you ever misjudged someone at work, maybe thought they weren’t engaged or excited about something, and then that judgment turned out to be completely wrong?

[00:00:11] Jennifer Chatman: Well, people delight and inspire me all the time, and usually, if they don’t, it’s because I don’t know them well enough yet. But to answer your question more literally, there was a woman that I worked with, and she was very introverted and shy, and it led me to not realize until I worked with her for a longer time that she had this brilliant strategic mind. And so, something about her introversion made it harder to see that.

[00:00:42] Sameer Srivastava: Well, you’re not alone. I think most of us have been there in some form or the other, and we tend to chalk it up to just a bad read. But what if it’s actually something more systematic, reflecting the culture of the organization? What if the way we interpret other people’s emotions at work is filtered through a cultural lens that most of us don’t even think about?

[00:01:04] Jennifer Chatman: Well, that’s exactly what our guest today has spent her career uncovering. Leaders think a lot about behavior, of course, what people do, how they communicate, how they collaborate, but there’s a layer underneath all that that almost no one examines. And it’s about the emotions a culture teaches people to want to feel. And this goes beyond what we think of as “big-C” culture and into “little-C” culture, the invisible standard that shapes who gets hired, who gets promoted, how we approach work, and even who gets left behind. So, let’s get started.

[00:01:37] Sameer Srivastava: I’m Sameer Srivastava, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business and co-founder of the Berkeley Center for Workplace Culture and Innovation.

[00:01:46] Jennifer Chatman: And I’m Jenny Chatman, a professor and dean at the Haas School, and this is The Culture Kit.

[00:01:53] Sameer Srivastava: Today, we’re joined by Jeanne Tsai, professor of psychology at Stanford and director of the Stanford Culture and Emotion Lab. She’s also an alum with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from UC Berkeley.

For more than 25 years, Jeanne has been building the science of how culture shapes not just what people do, but what they feel and what they want to feel. Her research has transformed how psychologists understand culture and emotion, and we think it has a lot to say for organizations and organizational leaders. Jeanne, welcome to The Culture Kit.

[00:02:28] Jeanne Tsai: It’s great to be here. Thanks so much for having me.

[00:02:32] Jennifer Chatman: So, Jeanne, you wrote this wonderful op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle about gold medalist Alysa Liu and her joyful gold medal performance, which we watched, and it made us joyful, along with many Americans who’ve really reacted to it. You made the point that, I think, introduces what we want to talk about today. You wrote that most of us believe our judgment of others, good or bad, reflect objective characteristics of the people we’re judging, but they also reflect the emotions we value. That feels like a pretty good starting point for our conversation.

[00:03:12] Jeanne Tsai: Yes. The American public reaction to Alysa Liu has been pretty impressive, and it hasn’t stopped. Truth be told, I’m not really an Olympics junkie, but I’m more of a news junkie. And so, when she started hitting my news feeds, I was really curious, and people were talking about, you know, how all the joy that you could see in her face when she was skating. So, I had to watch that video, the free skate to Donna Summer that everybody’s seen at this point. And I just loved it. I couldn’t stop watching it. It was like I was addicted to it. I just kept watching it over and over again.

At the same time, we had just published a paper that we’d been working on for eight years that reviews over 20 years of research on ideal affect, or the emotions that people value and ideally want to feel. One of the things that we found in that paper is that, as was true 20 years ago, today U.S. Americans value excitement, enthusiasm, elation, what we call these high-arousal positive emotions, more than members of many different East Asian contexts. And to me, the American response to Alysa Liu was just a reflection of this. So, I had to write about it.

[00:04:32] Jennifer Chatman: Yeah, I mean, compared to some of the other skaters, all of whom were brilliant and hugely accomplished, but they were, sort of, tighter and tenser, and there was something about that loose, flowing performance that really struck a chord. But I can see that I am profoundly American in that response.

[00:04:54] Jeanne Tsai: Exactly. That’s one of the points that I make in the op-ed, which is that when we are judging other people, it’s partly about the other person and the emotions that they’re expressing, but it’s also partly about us and the emotions that we value.

[00:05:08] Sameer Srivastava: So, Jeanne, this picks up on kind of a core distinction you make in your work, which is the difference between how people actually feel and how they ideally want to feel. Can you say a little bit more about that distinction? And also, why do you think that might matter for organizations?

[00:05:25] Jeanne Tsai: It’s such a good question. I think in everyday life, it’s, kind of, we confuse how we’re actually feeling and how we want to feel in any given moment in time, because the two are, of course, related to each other. And this is true of the field as well. So, when I started doing this research, most of the research really focused on actual affect, how people are actually feeling, how they’re responding to different circumstances in their lives.

And there was very little research on how people ideally wanted to feel, I think in part because people just assumed that everybody wants to feel the same way. But we really think of the two as different. As I said, how people actually feel, what we call actual affect, is really a response to a situation. But ideal affect is something that you’re aspiring to. It’s like a goal. It’s something that you want to achieve.

When we started doing this work, we basically realized that there weren’t very many measures of how people ideally wanted to feel. So, we created a survey where we just asked people how much they actually feel a number of states on average or over the course of a typical week, and then we asked them to rate how much they ideally wanted to feel those same states on average. And these are things like happiness and sadness and excitement and calm, nervousness and dullness.

And what we found was that across all of these different cultures that we sampled, that people overall want to feel more positive than negative, but they also want to feel more positive and less negative than they actually feel. So, the two are distinct. We’ve also used, you know, more complicated statistical methods to show that these two things are different.

And so, how people are actually feeling is not the same as how they ideally want to feel, and the two serve different functions. Actual affect is just a readout of how you’re doing. Ideal affect is like a measuring stick. It’s like a way of evaluating and interpreting your own responses, as well as other people’s responses. It’s also a guide for future behavior. When people aren’t feeling how they want to feel, they engage in different kinds of activities. They choose different kinds of products that help them achieve the state that they ideally want to feel.

[00:07:42] Sameer Srivastava: So, can you say a little bit more about ideal affect? Can you just maybe give us an example of what ideal affect means for you?

[00:07:48] Jeanne Tsai: Yes. So, how people ideally want to feel is more global. Like I said, how people want to feel on average over the course of a typical week. Oftentimes, when people are talking about how they should feel, they’re talking about a particular situation. How should I feel when I’m with my parents celebrating this holiday? How should I feel at a funeral?

And in our own studies, when we’ve distinguished between should and ideal affect, we see that they’re related, but they’re not the same thing. One of the reasons that we made this distinction between actual and ideal affect was that because we were interested in how culture influences our emotions, and we had this hypothesis that culture would influence how we want to feel even more than how we actually feel.

Of course, culture influences both, but because one of the purposes or functions of culture is to teach us what’s desirable and what’s good and what’s virtuous, it should have a greater impact on how we want to feel.

And again, in this large meta-analysis or review of 20 years of ideal affect data, we find that the cultural differences in ideal affect are more pronounced, they’re larger in magnitude than the cultural differences in actual affect. So, what does that mean? So, like I said, everybody wants to feel happy. You know, people all say that they want to feel happy, but what they mean by happiness varies across cultures.

In U.S. American contexts, when people are talking about happiness, they really mean excitement, enthusiasm, elation. But in many East Asian contexts, happiness is more associated with calm, peacefulness, serenity.

And these differences in ideal affect are reflected in our cultural environments, you know, they’re reflected in the media that we’re exposed to and in our institutions, in our practices. That’s how we learn to want to feel a certain way. It’s through exposure and engagement in our cultural context.

[00:09:41] Jennifer Chatman: So, that’s interesting. So, it’s not really just the individual’s conception of ideal, that that’s somehow socialized, and their judgment of that has been cued by their culture itself.

[00:09:54] Jeanne Tsai: Exactly. So, obviously, within a culture there are individual differences, and there’s individual differences in how people ideally want to feel. But we were really testing the hypothesis that some of these differences are cultural. So, we looked at different widely distributed cultural products, like the emotions that are conveyed in children’s storybooks, or the emotions that leaders convey in their official website photos, the emotions that are conveyed in women’s magazines.

And we find that in U.S. magazines, there’s more “excitement expressions”. So, what I mean by that are big, open, kind of toothy Julia Roberts smiles. You see more of those in American media than you do in East Asian media. And so, the idea is that these cultural products, like advertisements and children’s storybooks, are really reflecting the cultural differences in ideal affect. And then, as we’re exposed to them, we internalize them, even outside of our awareness. We’re internalizing what it looks like to be happy, what it looks like to be a good leader.

[00:10:59] Jennifer Chatman: Yeah, so Sameer and I, of course, study organizational culture, and so it’s interesting to think about how that same logic translates into the impact organizations have on people’s sense of what their ideal emotional state would be in that organization. So, what does it look like when a company is embedding one culture’s emotional ideal as the default? Does that constrain people into feeling emotions, or feeling like they should feel emotions that they’re not actually feeling?

[00:11:31] Jeanne Tsai: Yes. Well, organizations are like people, of course, they’re comprised of people, and in the same way people are products of their cultures, organizations are, even if they have their own specific culture.

And so, I think it affects a culture at many different stages. The ones that we’ve looked at are, you know, who organizations promote, maybe even who they choose to lead. And so, oftentimes you’ll hear recruiters say they’re looking for the excited candidates, the ones who show passion, you know. You can talk about what makes somebody succeed, right? Sylvia Ann Hewlett talks about executive presence, intellectual vitality, and those are all connected to passion. The emotional correlates of those things have, I would argue, to do with the cultural ideal, and in this case, the United States emphasis on high arousal positive states.

So, for example, then at the recruitment level, you might be looking for somebody who fits the culture, and you’re selecting somebody who’s really excited or who’s enthusiastic. Jenny, you started out with a great story about how somebody who was a little bit more quiet, you were wondering about, you weren’t quite sure about. If that person had shown a lot of excitement, you wouldn’t have had that concern. But just that initial pause, you know, came from your emotional ideal or your ideal affect.

And so, we’ve done these studies where we’ve actually had different U.S. Americans, and Hong Kong Chinese imagine, these are working adults, imagine that they’re hiring somebody for an internship, like a customer services internship, and we asked them, “What are the emotions of your ideal candidate?”

And the U.S. Americans are more likely to say excited states than the Hong Kong Chinese, and the Hong Kong Chinese are more likely to say their ideal applicant shows a lot of calm and peacefulness.

And then when you actually put them in a situation where they need to hire somebody and you show them an excited candidate, a calm candidate, or a neutral candidate, all of whom are qualified, they have similar qualifications, similar training and experience, again, the U.S. Americans are more likely to choose the excited candidate than the Hong Kong Chinese, and the Hong Kong Chinese are more likely to choose the calm candidate than the U.S. Americans.

So, you can see how people are choosing to hire people that reflect their ideals. And that’s fine if everybody’s in the same culture, but we live in a multicultural society. It’s a global economy, and it means then that you might be actually leaving talent on the table because you’re selecting people based on your ideal affect, and you, sort of, think that people don’t fit your organization when they actually might. It just might be that they’re expressing emotions that reflect their ideals that are different than yours.

[00:14:19] Jennifer Chatman: Yeah, so it’s an interesting potential source of bias, actually.

[00:14:23] Jeanne Tsai: Yes.

[00:14:23] Jennifer Chatman: And, you know, my guess then is that that would be very difficult to undo, because some of your work shows that these emotional misreads go down to kind of a neural level, that seeing an excited smile literally registers as more rewarding in someone’s brain who is from a society that values that. So, how deep does this run, and can we shift things at all if desirable?

[00:14:47] Jeanne Tsai: I think our neuroimaging studies really show that this just gets under the skin. Culture gets under the skin. We started doing those studies because we wanted to understand what were the mechanisms by which, why is it that we judge people who match our ideals more positively? We see them as warmer and friendlier, as more affiliative. We treat them more as friends versus foe. Could it be because we identify with them more, or we pay more attention to them? It turns out it is, as you said, that we find them more rewarding. We want to interact with them more.

The areas of the brain that show greater activity to these excited smiles, if you’re an American, are the same areas that activate when you’re about to earn money, you think you’re going to gain a lot of money. They’re the reward areas. So, you see somebody, and it’s just like a rush. You just like them more, and you want to interact with them more.

And there’s so many cases where, even in my own lab, where we’ve studied this for decades, I’ll have a graduate student who says that they’re interviewing somebody for a research assistantship, and they’ll say, “You know, I really like them, but I’m not so sure. They didn’t seem that excited about the position.” And I’ll say, “Well, can we remember what we’re studying?”

So, you’re right, it’s hard to overcome them, but I do think that with education and some awareness, at least, you can pause, or other people can make you pause and say, “Well, what is it that makes you think that this person is a better fit? Is it an emotion match or ideal affect match, or is it because of their actual qualifications or their merit?” So, just knowing that this is one criterion that we use can help us, sort of, think it through and be a little bit more deliberate about it, I think.

[00:16:33] Sameer Srivastava: Yeah, so sticking with this theme of the kinds of people we are drawn to, you also have some recent research looking at how people choose whom they want to have as a leader, and you find something really striking about how that changes depending on whether the organization is growing or perhaps instead struggling. Can you tell us more about what you found?

[00:16:52] Jeanne Tsai: Yes. So, in some earlier work that I was mentioning, we were looking at the official website photos of leaders in the United States and China and lots of different nations. And what we found was that leaders in the United States are six times more likely to show these big, open, toothy smiles compared-

[00:17:14] Sameer Srivastava: The Julia Roberts smile again?

[00:17:14] Jeanne Tsai: … to Chinese. The Julia Roberts, Joe Biden-

[00:17:16] Sameer Srivastava: Yep.

[00:17:18] Jeanne Tsai: … Obama, too, compared to their Chinese peers or counterparts. And it actually doesn’t matter whether they’re leaders in business, in government, or in academia. You see this across those different sectors.

And so, the idea is that this is a model of what an ideal leader should be, and this is how we get socialized, and we learn to value these emotional states and associate them with leadership. But our question was in this recent paper whether people actually do choose leaders for their own organizations along the lines of their ideal affect, and whether or not it matters how the organization is performing.

And so, this is novel because, in most cases, people don’t study some of the conditions of the organization and how that might influence leadership choice across cultures. We had people think about their own organizations that they were involved in, as well as hypothetical organizations, and then we also had them imagine that the organization was doing well, it was growing. So, for example, a business has a lot of investors, and they’re doing a great job selling their product versus their organization was in decline. They had no new investors. They couldn’t sell their product.

And would that change who they chose as their leader? And again, they were given an excited, a calm, and a neutral candidate matched in terms of their qualifications and their training. And what we found was that under conditions of growth, when the organizations are doing well, people default to cultural differences in ideal affect. So, European Americans and East Asian Americans choose the excited leader, and Hong Kong Chinese choose the calm leader.

But when organizations are in decline, it seems like those cultural differences in ideal ethic no longer matter for their choices of leader.

[00:19:10] Sameer Srivastava: So, can you say a bit more about that? What’s the mechanism? Is it a threat mechanism or something else?

[00:19:14] Jeanne Tsai: Yeah. We don’t really know. The results are consistent with other literature that shows that when times are uncertain or threatening, people are more likely to choose a non-prototypical leader than a prototypical leader. That was just done in the United States.

What we think might be going on is that during times of decline, people are feeling negative emotions, they’re anxious. That might tell them, those negative emotions might tell them to stop and be open to alternative strategies, because there’s some work in affective science that suggests that that’s one of the functions of negative emotions.

And so, it might be that people are just more open to… Because they don’t know, the circumstances are declining. They don’t know what the right option is, and so they’re just equally likely to choose these candidates. And it might be even that emotion doesn’t matter as much anymore, but we don’t know that for sure. That’s just what we’re thinking is going on.

[00:20:06] Jennifer Chatman: That’s super interesting. I mean, it makes me think about, sort of, scapegoating theory, because-

[00:20:11] Jeanne Tsai: Exactly.

[00:20:11] Jennifer Chatman: … of course, replacing one person at the top is not going to rearrange the whole structural situation, but, yeah. You know, thinking about leaders, I would say that leaders have been thinking hard about issues around inclusion and belonging, but your research points to a whole other way of thinking about this, you know, rather than on demographic characteristics per se, you’re talking about emotional norms. Tell us more about that.

[00:20:41] Jeanne Tsai: Yes. You know, I think as a society we’re pretty good about thinking of diversity in terms of race and gender, social class, but we haven’t even begun to think about diversity in terms of emotion. If you want cultural diversity, I think you have to recognize that culture shapes how people think, act, and feel, and so you have to be open to emotional diversity as well.

So, it reminds me of an ad campaign that Dove launched about diversity, and so you saw, like, the women were of different sizes, of different races, of different ages, but they all had this broad, toothy, excited smile. So, this is what I mean, right? Because we, sort of, just assume, “Oh, everybody wants to feel excited, and this is what people should be showing on their faces.”

So, I think that if you really want culturally inclusive spaces, you have to think about these deeper cultural differences, psychological differences, and emotion is one of them.

[00:21:47] Jennifer Chatman: Also, you spoke about your meta-analysis, and you found something interesting, that American workers’ emotional ideals seem to be shifting, and they seem to be appreciating calmness a little bit more, which I’m very relieved to hear that. But what’s changing, and how does it matter for organizations?

[00:22:06] Jeanne Tsai: Yeah, this is really a puzzle for us. We noticed early on that for European Americans, so Americans of European descent who’ve spent many generations in the United States, they seem to be valuing calm a little bit more with every study. And whereas there was less change among our East Asian participants.

And we didn’t really quite know why. There are many things, of course, going on in the United States, and so many things that you could point to that might explain this. And in fact, in this meta-analysis, when we looked at how much people were actually feeling negative emotion, we found that for European Americans, they’re also experiencing more negative affect. So, maybe they’re feeling more negative affect, and as an antidote for that, they want to feel more calm.

But what’s interesting is that the valuation of calm states among European Americans doesn’t seem to have the same behavioral consequences that it does for East Asians. For East Asians, when they value calm, then they’re choosing calm candidates or choosing calm activities. For European Americans, they’re still choosing more exciting activities. They like both excited and calm candidates, but they still are liking the excited candidates more than the East Asians. And it reminds me of some open-ended data that we collected early on, where we’re asking people about their ideal vacations, and this one European American participant said, “Well, I want to sleep all day so I can party all night long.”

And so, the idea was that the calm was helping you get to another state, right? And so, there are so many, you know, questions that still need to be answered about that. You know, it also reminds me, you know, yoga and meditation, of course, are quite popular, especially here in the Bay Area, and you see a lot of people doing more of it.

But in my old yoga studio, some of the yoga classes quickly became, they seemed like aerobics classes, you know, even though it was supposed to be calm, there was still a lot of energy and excitement there. So, I think it’s complicated in American culture, where you have such an emphasis on excitement, what it means to value calm.

[00:24:13] Jennifer Chatman: I’m questioning my power yoga class.

[00:24:15] Jeanne Tsai: Yeah, right, exactly.

[00:24:20] Sameer Srivastava: Well, Jeanne, it’s my responsibility to make our obligatory turn to the topic of AI in a podcast discussion, so let me do that. And we know, of course, that AI is now getting deeply embedded in how organizations hire and evaluate people, interact with their employees. And we’ve heard a lot about cultural biases that can get embedded in AI, but you’ve actually studied what people want from AI and found that it varies a lot by cultural background. Can you tell us a bit more about what you found, and what are the implications for leaders who are trying to incorporate these tools into their practice?

[00:24:53] Jeanne Tsai: Well, there’s a few things I want to say about culture and AI. I think AI is a cultural product, just like anything else, right? It’s reflecting cultural values, and it’s reinforcing them.

And so, there’s some really interesting work out of MIT that shows that when you compare generative AI like ChatGPT versus ERNIE in China, you see that they, when you ask them to behave in a more American way or a more Chinese way, they actually produce results that are consistent with research in cross-cultural psychology.

So, in English with American generative AI, they produce more independent kinds of responses that promote the individual, whereas in more Chinese-speaking, and ERNIE, and the generative AI produces more interdependent responses that focus more on the group.

And so, one of the things that we’re looking at in my lab is to see whether that’s the case also for emotion. You know, if you’re asking the AI to produce a smile, we’d predict that ChatGPT would produce more of an excited smile, whereas ERNIE might produce more of a calm one. We’ll see if that’s true or not.

But in our study, we were interested in how these cultural differences in views of the self as independent or interdependent influence what we want from AI systems in our everyday lives. And what we found was that, you know, in American culture, where there’s an emphasis on the individual and on influencing your environment, that means changing your environment to be consistent with how you want it to be, Americans don’t want AI to have an influence on them. They want to be able to control the AI. They’re really nervous if the AI is autonomous.

But in the Chinese context that we studied, where there’s more of an emphasis on adjusting to the environment, that’s part of the more interdependent model of self, there’s more of a desire to connect with AI. There’s more comfort with AI being more autonomous. And so, I think when people are designing AI, it’s really, obviously, important to think about who their audience is and what are the cultural preferences of their audiences. A lot of the concerns that we have about AI here in the United States, people in other cultural contexts don’t have as much.

[00:27:07] Sameer Srivastava: So, just thinking about the distinction between ERNIE and ChatGPT as you were talking about, given that most U.S. firms are using a handful of the same generative AI tools, is there a risk that they may be locking in one cultural emotional standard into their organizations? And if so, what can leaders do to break free from that?

[00:27:27] Jeanne Tsai: Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think what was interesting about this work from Jackson Lu at MIT was he showed that even when you use ChatGPT, if you give it a cultural prompt and you say something like, how would a Chinese person respond to this prompt, it can make the adjustment.

So, I think part of maybe what companies need to do is to take culture into consideration when they’re prompting the AI. I mean, there’s much more work that has to be done on looking at, you know, what the cultural biases or the cultural content is of these different AI systems, but then I think there’s work to do on the part of the user to acknowledge culture and ask the AI to acknowledge it, too.

[00:28:05] Sameer Srivastava: Well, so Jeanne, we always like to end by asking our guests to summarize some practical takeaways for organizational leaders. So, if you had to pick two or three big takeaways from your work, what would they be?

[00:28:16] Jeanne Tsai: I think one of them is to think about the emotions that you are encouraging your employees to feel and to acknowledge that they might be at odds with the emotions that they ideally want to feel. I think it’s really to just be more conscious and aware of, you know, what emotions you value and you’re valuing as an organization.

I think the second is to consider the possibility that your evaluations of a job candidate, of one of your employees, of somebody who’s coming up for promotion might be partly a reflection of their achievements and their merit and performance, but it might also be a reflection of how you ideally want to feel and what you think is the ideal candidate and applicant and leader.

And then the third is, I think, for leaders to recognize that when they’re interacting with leaders of companies or institutions, organizations from other cultures, their expressions of happiness and friendliness might not be interpreted in that way by members of other cultures. So, I think we tend to think that emotions are just part of being human. We don’t really realize how our emotions are cultural, and I think that that’s an important thing for people to remember.

[00:29:41] Jennifer Chatman: Well, thanks so much, Jeanne. This has been a fascinating conversation. It has made me both excited and calm. Thank you for joining us.

[00:29:51] Sameer Srivastava: Thank you so much, Jeanne.

[00:29:52] Jeanne Tsai: Thank you.

[00:29:56] Jennifer Chatman: Thanks for listening to The Culture Kit with Jenny & Sameer!

[00:30:00] Sameer Srivastava: The Culture Kit Podcast is a production of the Berkeley Center for Workplace Culture and Innovation at the Haas School of Business and is produced by University FM. If you enjoyed the show, be sure to hit that subscribe button, leave us a review, and share this episode online so others who have workplace culture questions can find us, too!

[00:30:20] Jennifer Chatman: I’m Jenny.

[00:30:21] Sameer Srivastava: And I’m Sameer.

[00:30:23] Jennifer Chatman: We’ll be back soon with more tools to help fix your work culture challenges.

View posts by Laura Counts

Previous Melissa Valentine on Assembling Your ‘Avengers’: Flash Teams in the Age of AI Next The Office Has to Earn It: How Physical Space Shapes Organizational Culture